In daily life, it is very easy to find positive information about organic farming.
Most people have an approving viewpoint on the matter, even if they do not feel particularly strongly about it. However, there are many people who are enthusiastic about organic, and they create blogs, websites, farmers markets, social groups, and the like to promote these interests and expand their clientele and interest groups. Despite this passion that is becoming increasingly pervasive, organic farming remains a very small portion of the agricultural and gastronomic worlds. This indicates that there are certainly reasons for resistance and the majority of peoples’ unwillingness to purchase non-
conventionally grown foods.
Industrial Organic
Paradoxically, some of the heaviest criticism of today’s organic movement comes from organic farmers or proponents of organic. While they, of course, do not criticize the movement itself, they are sometimes not pleased with its current situation. The growing market has seen the emergence of larger scale organic production companies and the participation of large conventional companies. For example, Coca-Cola has large shares of Green Mountain Tea, Odwalla, and Honest Tea. Kellogg owns Kashi and Morningstar Farms/Natural Touch. Campbell Soup Company owns Bolthouse Farms, Wolfgang
Celestial, which has control over two dozen brands, including Celestial Seasonings, Earth’s Best, and Garden of Eatin’ (Howard, 1).18
Many of these organic advocates who simultaneously criticize the movement do so because they feel that it is losing its original ideals. They argue that it has been promoted and marketed simply as a business endeavor. In order to combat this, many institutions that are some of the originators of the movement have basic standards that guide them. IFOAM, for example, has certain principles that they abide by and use to maintain their future endeavors (Schmid, 165-166).
One example of a farmer that feels that the organic movement has sold out on its ideals is Joel Salatin, mentioned in the previous chapter. He does not label himself as
“organic,” rather as “beyond organic” because he supports his fellow local farmers and believes that it is better to have fresher, better quality food from nearby rather than ship food that is legally organic across the country creating products that are “really coated in diesel fuel.” He also states, “industrial organic is a contradiction of terms,” meaning the organic method is inherently non-industrial and those who make it so are ignoring organic philosophies. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan devotes an entire chapter called “Big Organic” that discusses this industrialization of organic, particularly focusing on Whole Foods, one of the largest and most popular organic distributors in the country.
He analyzes the “Supermarket Pastoral” image that Whole Foods portrays: “authentic experiences with a return to a utopian past with the positive aspects of modernity intact.”
Some of the major brands that are sold in the store include Earthbound Farms and Grimmway Farms, which own Cal-Organic, another large brand name sold in Whole
18 “Who Buys Organic?” provides a flow chart detailing the ownership of every organic corporation in the United States.
Foods. These companies are California-based and are comparable sizes to conventional factory farms and engage in the same practices. For example, in dairy production sites, such as Horizon and Aurora, there are thousands of Holstein cows that are kept inside day and night who have to stand in their own waste. They are fed certified organic products and milked three times a day, and this milk is later ultra pasteurized to ensure a longer shelf life. Part of Pollan’s Whole Foods meal included a chicken raised by Petaluma Poultry. It was labeled as a “sustainably farmed” and “free-range chicken” named Rosie.
He visited the Petaluma farm, and he describes it as “more animal factory than farm”
where “twenty thousand other Rosies…live lives little different from that of any other industrial chicken.” They are housed in a shed for the first five or six weeks of their lives then allowed access to the outside via a single small door, but none of the chickens ever venture through it, and two weeks later they are slaughtered (Pollan, 132-140).
A French equivalent of Whole Foods is Naturalia, a natural and organic
supermarket that was started in 1973 in Paris and which now has 79 locations in Paris, Lyon, Marseille, and Strasbourg. Multiple brands that are sold in the store originate and are imported from Italy, including Eurofood and Nature Med. However, most of the brands are produced in France, primarily southern France (Naturalia).
Additionally, the common means of production and distribution today have shaped people who are accustomed to being able to purchase organic products at supermarkets and who expect a certain level of homogeneity in their products. This amount of consistency is coupled with demands for fair trade and diversity of products, such as ones that are exotic or out of season. As these demands increase, the differences between organic and conventional products become more indistinct, forcing people to
create new strategies to make their products unique. For example, in some areas there is the option on organic farms to rent a layer hen, pick the vegetables, or donate in support of an endangered species to provide increased motivation to purchase their goods (Aschemann, et al., 130-131).
Lack of Health Benefits
While, or perhaps because, one of the primary motivations for producing and consuming organic foods is the perceived health benefits, discussed in the previous chapter, one of the largest counter-arguments is the perceived lack of health benefits that organic foods offer. Many people are unconvinced that organic is necessarily
significantly healthier than conventional foods because the pesticide levels of
conventional foods are almost always within a safe range. Most developed countries’
governments set limits on the amount of chemical additives crops and foodstuffs can receive based on the level of detriment to physical health of the animals and people that consume the foods. Also, studies have shown that the nutritional value of organic foods is only marginally superior to traditional foods, if at all (“Criticisms…,” 2-5).
A review of scientific studies in the International Journal of Food and
Technology, relates that in some studies organic foods are shown to have more benefits, such as higher vitamin contents and lower levels of pesticides and nitrates. However, they also risk contamination of certain pathogens, such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes, particularly from manure since it is frequently used as fertilizer in organic production. In a study conducted in 2005, the results were varying in terms of organic plants being contaminated by bacteria, with some crops having been tested as
positive and others as negative. In regard to overall quality, determined by firmness, titrable acidity, and content of soluble solids, a study conducted by Weibel, et al., showed slightly better results for the organic apples tests in comparison to the conventional apples. However, a similar study performed by Roussos and Gasparatos showed that there were no significant differences. The conclusion of the review of studies determined that there is insufficient information to confirm that organic foods are better than, worse than, or the same as conventional foods, and the outcomes of studies are highly variable depending on the type of foods being tested (Lima and Vianello, 1-10).
Some organic producers utilize natural pesticides, such as Pyrethrin and
Rotenone, and some people claim that these pesticides are just as, if not more, harmful than traditional pesticides. Rotenone, for example, has been linked to Parkinson’s disease and can be lethal to humans. It is a naturally occurring insecticide, acaricide (mite- and spider-killing), and piscicide (fish-killing), and it has been used since the mid- 19th century. It is permitted in organic agricultural use according to EU Regulation 2092/91 because of its naturally occurring state and short time period of toxicity (it breaks down in one to six days, depending on the season). However, lethal cases are very rare because it is sold in small quantities and the side effects of consumption are fast acting, resulting in immediate vomiting or coughing. The development of Parkinson’s has been linked to Rotenone, but it requires two to three milligrams per kilogram of body weight each day, an extremely abnormal dosage. The lethal dosage is 300 to 500
milligrams (“Rotenone,” 20-21).
Environmental Toll
One of the various criticisms of organic agriculture in relation to the environment is its use of pesticides. Critics say that it is hypocritical to still use pesticides, fungicides, and insecticides in organic farming since it claims to ban their usage. Some also say that those chemicals, such as nicotine and pyrethrum, can be just as detrimental to the
environment than conventional ones and are used in exceeding quantities, further damaging the surrounding areas. They are sometimes deemed less efficient than conventional pesticides, and are therefore added in higher quantities, polluting the land and water even more. It has also been said that because organic farming results in lower yields, it necessitates using more land area to expand farming into marginal and natural areas to grow the same amount of food as traditional agriculture. In order to fertilize organic crops, farmers oftentimes use animal manure, compost, or green manure crops, and the use of these products can create an imbalance in the nutritional quality of the soil, particularly for the phosphorous levels. The required nutrient levels are sometimes barely met, and other times they are exceeded (“Criticisms…,” 15-23).
Cost
One of the most pervasive arguments in opposition to organic farming is its cost, and the high prices can be attributed to a number of factors. The supply of organic products is limited, which drives up the price of the goods. The economies of scale oftentimes cannot be achieved because the yields are lower than conventional yields. The farming methods are usually more intensive than with traditional farming, necessitating more time and physical labor, more attentive workers, larger staffs, and more expensive
inputs. Organic goods can sometimes require more careful and faster (because of the shorter shelf lives) packaging and transportation, further increasing the price, especially in comparison to the relatively small outputs. Because not all organic crops can be produced in all areas and during every season, the shipment time and effort that goes into transportation also escalate prices. In addition, marketing for the goods is more heavily present than for most conventional counterparts, making the industry as a whole more expensive (“Criticisms…,” 31-41).
In 2012, 77 percent of those interviewed who do not purchase organic stated that they chose not to on the basis of the elevated prices (“La Bio en France…,” 14). The price of organic goods tends to be at least 20 percent to 30 percent more than that of conventional goods in France, and they can reach up to double or triple the price. The table below gives specific prices, measured in euros, for various goods. The costs provided are those from the specialty organic store Naturalia, and the AB logo brands, name brands, and distributor/generic brands were found at the supermarket Ooshop.
Some have argued that this gap between the goods’ prices increases the inequality between the upper and lower classes of society because it enables the wealthier citizens the ability to buy healthier or better products and excludes many people who cannot afford them. Although the organic goods have been and are currently more expensive than traditional goods, this discrepancy has shown signs of diminishing. For instance, in a report published by the French Ministry of the Economy and Finances, the average gap in prices for carrots decreased from €1.28 per kilogram in 2008, €1.15 in 2009, €1.12 in 2010, and €1.02 in 2011. Likewise, the golden apple decreased its price disparity from
€2.65 per kilogram in 2008 to €2.24 per kilogram in 2011, and the cucumber decreased from €1.17 per kilogram in 2008 to €0.82 per kilogram in 2011 (Roux, 4-8).
Table 3
Organic and Conventional Product Price Comparison Products Market
Organic (Naturalia)
Organic (AB logo)
Name Brand Distributor/
Generic Brand
Olive Oil 7.47 5.83 5.86 (Maille) 3.70
Natural Yogurt 1.60 1.31 0.86 (Dannon) 0.65
Eggs 2.27 2.20 2.02 (Loué) 1.19
Emmental cheese
1.82 1.35 1.10
(Entremont)
0.90
Ground Beef 3.95 3.00 2.17 (Fleury
Michon) 2.17
Orange Juice 3.28 2.27 2.35 (Andros) 1.75
Total: €20.39 €15.96 €14.36 €10.36
Source: Mottez, Diane. “Le Bio: Combine Ca Coute (En Plus)?” Journal Des Femmes. 2013. P. 1-2.
Insufficient Quantities
It is well-known that organic farms regularly yield less than conventional farms do, so many people are concerned that an increase in organic farming will lead to a decrease in the ability to feed the world’s populations. A study conducted by the USDA determined that the available manure would only suffice for a quarter of the farmland, if it were used as the sole means of organic fertilization. Animals are raised more slowly in organic production, thus making the process of providing food to people even slower (“Criticisms…,” 50-57). In the documentary Food Beware, footage is shown of a
meeting between the town mayor, conventional farmers, and organic farmers. One of the
conventional farmers offers his opinion as to why he has not switched to completely organic practices:
I believe in an agriculture that’s reasoned, one that most farmers practice.
There are reasoned programs in wine production, in major crops too.
Fertilizers with less nitrogen, to avoid leaching. Measures like this show that we care about protecting the environment. We saw the practices of our parents, and there were excesses. Youngsters, today, even in conventional agriculture, are aware that they must be careful. For two reasons: there’s concern about protecting the people, but also about watching their wallets because products are expensive. So I believe in organic, but there’s a niche market. But totally organic, I don’t think there’d be enough to feed everyone. (Jaud 59:15)
Marketing Scheme
One of the largest works regarding opposition towards organic farming in general and particularly for France is Bio: Fausses Promesses et Vrai Marketing by Gil Rivière- Wekstein, published in 2011. Throughout the book he, the founder of the monthly publication Agriculture et Environnement and member of the French Association of Agricultural Journalists, outlines many grievances that he has with the organic movement as a whole. He begins by acknowledging that organic is an unavoidable (incontournable) trend, especially because large chains such as Carrefour, Auchan, Monoprix, Leclerc, and Super U in France have devoted sizeable portions of their stores to organic, and many of them have developed their own organic lines, much like Whole Foods has with its 365
brand (15). He mentions from the beginning that the main issues faced are cost, high necessity for employment (organic farms on average have 30 percent more employees than conventional enterprises), feeble yields, overly difficult logistics (transportation, packaging, labeling, stocking, etc.), inspection, problems of availability, and
maintenance. He states that the ultimate question is knowing whether buying organic is really worth the better health, more environmental respect, and more solidarity to small- time and local farmers, and if organic can keep those promises (20-23).
Rivière-Wekstein initially questions and analyzes the claim that organic is healthier than traditional agriculture. He uses many of the same arguments discussed above, saying that there has been little to no data proving that organic has superior nutritional quality, sometimes even exhibiting lower quantities of vitamins, antioxidants, etc. He cites Dr. Alan Dangour of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition who said,
“From the point of view of nutrition, there is actually no element in favor of organic choices over conventional ones.” He also references a study conducted where mice that were fed exclusively organic feed were two times weaker and more likely to die than mice fed solely regular feed. The studies that have shown that the organic foods tested were healthier than the conventional foods were limited in their scope, difficult to reproduce, and could not accurately represent the entire organic realm (33-38).
A large portion of the book is geared towards the argument that many, if not most, factions of organic beliefs stem from ancient and outdated practices and philosophies. In particular, Rivière-Wekstein looks at people like Rudolph Steiner who promote a return to way of life of previous generations and additionally encourage the belief of cosmic or life forces that only certain techniques, such as using creating fertilizer only from cow
horns, can channel for the growth of their crops. Moreover, he says that many of the same people as well as other groups utilize language that invokes apocalyptic sentiments.
They state that eating foods grown with chemicals is catastrophic, for example, and they spread fear to people to encourage them to consume their products and literature. Rivière- Wekstein accuses the doctor and author Laurent Chevallier who propagates this fear by saying that these foods cause cancer and other life-threatening diseases, simply to promote his book Mes Ordonnances Alimentaires (40-61).
In addition, the author details his objection to the issue of organic farming being in opposition to chemical use for multiple reasons. First, he says that there is no
agriculture that exists without some form of pesticide or fertilizer. Farmers have been using chemicals for generations, and they are oftentimes natural and not synthetic. These pesticides include nicotine, coal, copper sulfate, turpentine, soap, tobacco juice, mercury, and Bordeaux Mixture (bouillie bordelaise, a fungicide composed of copper sulfate and slaked lime). He believes that while there are many blights can be dealt with or
prevented organically, there are others that necessitate more intensive intervention, such as aphids, caterpillars, moths, mildews, and diseases capable of killing whole crops. The natural pesticides have often not been tested for toxicity, and they have been reported to be more dangerous than synthetic chemicals. For example, the nicotine used on crops was 40 times more toxic for humans than DDT. Moreover, synthetic pesticides have oftentimes been developed based on naturally occurring ones. Even if pesticides are not used, the foods can still be contaminated with them from nearby farms or even different crops on the same farm. A study conducted in October 2009 in the Belgian laboratory Fytolab showed that it was not rare to find residues on organic products. Even if there
are residues on any food, organic or conventional, many people agree that they will not surpass the legal limits, which have been tested and determined on an international scale to be well within health safety regulations. The risk of contaminants is not one so great that one should forego eating fruits and vegetables, says Dr. David Servan-Schreiber, who took part in an interview concerning foods that protect against cancer. He also stated that the key issue is to maintain as balanced of a diet as possible, no matter the label (64-84).
The areas that Rivière-Wekstein makes the most concessions are taste and environment. He acknowledges that organic is certainly better in terms of authenticity, and it typically tastes better. However, taste is a highly subjective issue that cannot be a primary determinant for the market as a whole. Also, there are many food movements that are not necessarily organic that have superior taste as well, such as le Label Rouge, Appellations d’Origine Controllé (AOC), and Indications Geographiques Protégées (IGP). In terms of protecting the environment, organic does tend to be better, but there are limits to this superiority. This includes the use of natural but still toxic chemicals, and the fact that organic farms sometimes have to expand their land area in order to compensate for lower crop yields. This can cut into natural surroundings and further damage the environment (91-102). Rivière-Wekstein concludes his book by qualifying his argument and saying that organic is not innately detrimental or inhibiting to
agriculture because it is most often driven by ecological and fair motives; he is more so against the extreme levels to which some people have taken it and particularly the misleading arguments that marketers use to gain supporters and buyers.